Appeal 3368237

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for new 3 bay cartlodge with office / storage above at [site address] , Suffolk [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, DC/25/0502/HH, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no 010 proposed plans 28.03.2025.

The West Suffolk Local Plan 2024-2041 (LP) was adopted on 15 July 2025. My decision therefore relates to its policies, as supplied by the Council, which supersede those referenced in the refusal notice.

The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of [site address] Conservation Area (CA).

[site address] is a quite dispersed settlement and the significance of its CA reflects a rather organic pattern of small scale historic growth. This preserves a distinctly rural character. On 17 September 2018, when allowing a dwelling where [address] stands, the Inspector noted there to be no particular pattern to buildings and spaces along this section of road and that the contribution this site made was not so vital to the character and appearance of the area that it should be retained in its current open and undeveloped state1. 1 Appeal Ref: APP/E3525/W/18/3196861 Erection of dwelling at site adj. Waterfield, [address], [site address] , Haverhill, Suffolk [postcode] .

This site is now occupied by a differently designed dwelling approved by the Council on 19 July 20192. This consent had included a cartlodge to the fore of the dwelling, and this proposal is an alternative to this. A larger cartlodge to that allowed had been dismissed in an appeal decision made on 8 September 20223. Following this, an alternative design for a three bay cartlodge was approved by the Council on 27 January 20234.

Therefore, as fallback, one of two alternative cartlodge designs could be built under existing consents. These establish the principle of an ancillary building to the front of [address]. Therefore, my decision turns on the acceptability or otherwise of the design and scale of building now proposed. The Inspector’s findings in relation to the scheme dismissed in 2022 are particularly relevant. That proposal had been a larger version of the cartlodge allowed with the house in 2019, with a similarly asymmetrical design. The scheme before me is somewhat lower in height to that dismissed previously. Whilst still providing roof space accommodation, it is of a simpler design, taller than but comparable with the cartlodge approved by the Council in 2023. This scheme would be to the same footprint as that approved building, with a slightly raised roof, half hipped rather than fully hipped at the sides, an external staircase adjacent the house and rooflights to the rear.

Viewed when approaching this property from the north, the proposed cartlodge would be set against the backdrop of trees and vegetation which screen the water treatment works beyond. This thick greenery would cushion its visual impact. The road then turns which means the cartlodge would appear as a backstop to the visible street scene. Although larger than either approved cart lodge, this proposal is of reduced height to the previous appeal scheme and of a simpler and more balanced design. It would thus not appear unduly discordant.

The previous appeal scheme was found by the Inspector to cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA. With no countervailing public benefits, this weighed conclusively against approval. Relative to this, and accounting for the fallback options, this lower profile and simpler design would not create such a degree of harm. Conscious of my duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the impacts would be neutral and thus preserve the character and appearance of the CA.

In terms of its design, scale and position, the proposal would have no materially adverse effect on the character and appearance of the CA. It would therefore comply with LP policies 9 (well-designed places), 17 (ancillary residential development) and 37 (conservation areas), as well as SP4 (design).

Subject to standard time limit and plan compliance conditions, I conclude the appeal succeeds.